Departmental exoneration on merits can bar criminal prosecution on identical facts; jurisdictional challenge to investigation also failed.

Exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits can bar continuation of criminal prosecution where both proceedings rest on substantially identical allegations and the departmental findings negate the core accusation; the criminal case was therefore held not maintainable on the same facts. A challenge to the Anti-Corruption Branch's jurisdiction to investigate a Delhi Police Sub-Inspector was rejected, as the complaint could be investigated by the competent authority. The writ petition succeeded and the charge order, with consequential proceedings, was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits barred continuation of criminal proceedings on the same allegations; (ii) whether the Anti-Corruption Branch lacked jurisdiction to investigate the petitioner, a Delhi Police Sub-Inspector.

Issue (i): Whether exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits barred continuation of criminal proceedings on the same allegations.

Analysis: The departmental enquiry and the criminal case were based on substantially identical allegations. The departmental exoneration was found to be on merits and not on a mere technicality. The legal position applied was that while departmental and criminal proceedings are ordinarily independent, continuation of criminal prosecution may not be justified where the employee has been exonerated on merits on the same factual foundation and the departmental findings negate the core allegation.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings could not be continued on the same set of facts, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the Anti-Corruption Branch lacked jurisdiction to investigate the petitioner, a Delhi Police Sub-Inspector.

Analysis: The challenge to the Anti-Corruption Branch's competence was rejected. The judgment held that the petitioner could not succeed merely on the ground that he served in Delhi Police, and that the authority receiving the complaint was entitled to investigate the allegations.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the petitioner's exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits justified discontinuance of the criminal case, and the charge order and all consequential proceedings were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings rest on the same factual matrix, and the employee is exonerated on merits in the departmental enquiry, continuation of the criminal prosecution may amount to abuse of process; however, a jurisdictional objection to investigation will fail where the investigating authority is competent to act on the complaint.

---